Marie Shanahan: What Aren't People Getting From The Media? Civil Conversations

/

By getting involved in online conversations, the media can help steer the dialogue toward civility.

By getting involved in online conversations, the media can help steer the dialogue toward civility. (/)

Marie K. Shanahan

A traditional function of the press in society is to foster discussion and debate on issues of public concern. One of journalism’s democratic responsibilities is to provide forums for public criticism and compromise. That obligation hasn’t disappeared in the digital age. It’s become even more important.

But digital discourse needs a course correction. It’s stuck in a spiral of negativity. The press itself should take a more active role in the conversation.

The modern news cycle is a torrent of headlines. The furious pace of delivery can overwhelm us and interfere with our ability think deeply or understand fully.

With social media serving as our most common pathway to online news, we’re discovering stories through algorithms that reward whatever is newest or most popular. Our one-column social feeds keep us engaged with real-time news awareness and constant discovery, but they offer scant cues of importance.

Left in a state of semi-learned helplessness, more than half of Americans (58 percent) say the increase in news sources has made it HARDER for them to stay informed, according to a January 2018 Gallup poll.

Don’t get me wrong. I love the internet and my iPhone. Digital connection has given me fast and mostly free access to more news than ever. News in 2018 exists in an amazing, hyperconnected world of ubiquitous media, global connectivity and instantaneous communication. But the system’s flaws are many. With an endless supply of on-demand news, opinion and my friends’ reactions, it’s easy to treat the news like snackable entertainment.

The deluge of news has also made us more reactive. Studies show we click on headlines that give us something to talk about. And when we find dramatic or negative news, we share it. There’s a lot of sharing going on — with a lot of strong feelings attached.

The news has always prompted conversations, but the way discussions unfold and persist online is often toxic. News has become synonymous with outrage. The online discourse around news seems to trigger our worst attributes. Those who dare dive into comments sections on polarizing stories about sexuality, race, politics or religion will encounter fear, loathing and snark with a heavy dose of exaggeration, fatalism and motivated reasoning mixed in.

Yet the online discourse around news matters. Chains of discussion help news reach interested audiences. Our understanding of news events often has less to do with facts reported by journalists than with the conversations that follow the stories.

Because the social norm of polite discourse is not widely practiced online, public discourse is suffering. Personal attacks, harassment, hate speech and threats of violence render impossible the kind of substantive debate needed in a civil democracy.

The hostility of online speech dissuades moderate, level-headed speakers from publicly expressing their views, while the most subversive, ideologically-oriented and politically rancorous speakers siphon the public’s attention.

I don’t like that reasonable, informed citizens are choosing to not add their voices to important public discussions, especially when the communities being talked about aren’t even involved in those conversations.

This is where the media can help.

The public perception of ‘combat zones’ surrounding news stories hurts journalists’ credibility as community connectors and reliable brokers of the truth. Americans blame the media for helping to create high levels of incivility that deepen the nation’s political dysfunction.

If online conversations are steeping a bitter brew, then local news organizations have an opportunity to reboot their public-service mission by tweaking the existing recipe of online dialogue. Provide the public with moderated online spaces to debate with a novel selling point: minimized incivility.

News organizations have enormous freedom in deciding how to host and moderate productive interactions between audience members.

Meaningful public discourse requires news outlets to be the aggressors — the driving force in convening constructive conversations. I want value added to comments above the reactive social media layer.

Journalists, at their best, are trained in verification and reasoned debate and possess what American Press Institute executive director Tom Rosenstiel calls “an ethos of open-minded inquiry.” At the helm of a discussion, journalist moderators can question and fact-check, label verified information and keep the record straight.

The destructive tone of online discourse isn’t going to improve without a champion. A 2017 survey concluded that uncivil and manipulative behaviors on the internet will persist — and are likely to get worse. Our digitally connected citizenry will continue to have a hard time solving problems if people are unable, unwilling or incapable of listening, talking and identifying where they actually agree.